<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga-abuse] [Admin] Warning (was: Re: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras)
"Has the ICANN Board and staff approved this ?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kristy McKee" <k@widgital.com>
To: "Alexander Svensson" <alexander@svensson.de>
Cc: "Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@Ameritech.Net>; "GA List Monitoring" <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] [Admin] Warning (was: Re: [ga] 0:212 IPv8 Recommended .BIZ Registras)
> ALEXANDER, What is your problem?
>
> I realize Jim Fleming posted this message; however, his question is rather
> ON TOPIC.
>
> "Has the ICANN Board and staff approved this ?"
>
> Just because ICANN is NOT doing it's job is NO REASON for you to attempt to
> convince others that technical coordination and policy is not on topic
> within the DNSO.
>
> ~k
>
>
>
> At 01:55 PM 8/10/2002 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >Jim,
> >
> >please keep in mind that this is a forum for DNSO work,
> >decidedly *not* a place to post registrar recommendations
> >and *not* a place for extensive discussion of the
> >address space (to discuss this, go to aso-policy@aso.icann.org).
> >Please to be warned that off-topic postings are violating
> >the list rules and can lead to a suspension of posting
> >rights.
> >
> >Regards,
> >/// GA List Monitor
> >
> >At 09.08.2002 17:34, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > >Has the ICANN Board and staff approved this ?
> > >
> > >Jim Fleming
> > >2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
> > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Bob Hinden" <hinden@iprg.nokia.com>
> > >To: "IPv6 List" <ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:27 PM
> > >Subject: Changes to IPv6 Addressing Architecture Draft
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> At the IPv6 working group sessions at the Yokohama IETF two changes to
> > the
> > >> IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture draft
> > >>
> > >> <draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-08.txt>
> > >>
> > >> were discussed. These changes were proposed based on feedback received
> > >> from our area director and email discussion on the mailing list. A
> > summary
> > >> of the AD comments is include at the end of the email.
> > >>
> > >> The changes that were proposed at the meeting were to relax the interface
> > >> identifier uniqueness requirements (from the link to subnet prefix)
> > and to
> > >> change the definition of Site-Local addresses to make the subnet field
> > >> 54-bits (and eliminate the 38-bit zero field).
> > >>
> > >> After discussing the proposed changes, a consensus was reached at the
> > >> Yokohama meeting to make them. The purpose of this email is to validate
> > >> that consensus on the mailing list and to review the specific changes to
> > >> the internet draft.
> > >>
> > >> The proposed changes (changed lines marked by "|") to the ID are as
> > follows:
> > >>
> > >> Change to second sentence in the first paragraph of section 2.5.1:
> > >>
> > >> Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify
> > >> interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet |
> > >> prefix. They may also be unique over a broader scope. In some cases |
> > >> an interface's identifier will be derived directly from that
> > >> interface's link-layer address. The same interface identifier may be
> > >> used on multiple interfaces on a single node, as long as they are
> > >> attached to different links.
> > >>
> > >> and from section 2.5.6 where site-local is defined:
> > >>
> > >> Site-Local addresses have the following format:
> > >>
> > >> | 10 |
> > >> | bits | 54 bits | 64 bits |
> > >> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
> > >> |1111111011| subnet ID | interface ID | |
> > >> +----------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
> > >>
> > >> Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of
> > >> a site without the need for a global prefix. Although a subnet ID may |
> > >> be up to 54-bits long, it is expected that most globally-connected |
> > >> sites will use the same subnet IDs for site-local and global prefixes. |
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> If there is agreement with these changes I will submit a new draft (-09)
> > >> that the area directors can proceed with.
> > >>
> > >> Bob
> > >>
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Comments from Thomas Narten:
> > >>
> > >> >1) The -07 ID contains the wording:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Interface identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to
> > identify
> > >> > > interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique on that link.
> > >> >
> > >> >Given the on-going issues surrounding DAD vs DIID, I felt it
> > >> >appropriate to check with the WG whether this wording was indeed what
> > >> >the WG believed the architecture should require.
> > >> >
> > >> >2) The -07 ID contains the wording:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Site-Local addresses have the following format:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > | 10 |
> > >> > > | bits | 38 bits | 16 bits | 64 bits |
> > >> > > +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
> > >> > > |1111111011| 0 | subnet ID | interface ID |
> > >> > > +----------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------+
> > >> >
> > >> >Given that the fixed 16-bit subnet ID in global addresses was changed
> > >> >to one having a flexible boundary, the subnet ID in site-locals should
> > >> >also not have a fixed boundary. Note that other parts of the document
> > >> >showing addresses were updated to use generic "m" bits, rather than
> > >> >fixing the field at 16 bits, under the concern that implementations
> > >> >*might* somehow hardcode the boundary in their implementations.
> > >> >
> > >> >Also, it might be good to clarify that the middle bits are undefined
> > >> >and should be 0. I.e., implementors could interpret the above words as
> > >> >saying the bits are defined to always be zero (as opposed to just
> > >> >reserved for future use and MUST be zero), which could lead
> > >> >implementations to somehow check that those bits are 0, and if not, do
> > >> >something incorrect (like signal an error).
> > >> >
> > >> >The specific text that was proposed and discussed at the Yokohama
> > >> >meeting addresses the main concern I had.
> > >> >
> > >> >At the meeting, there were still some folks that seemed unhappy with
> > >> >the proposed change. I'd be interested in understand why. Only itojun
> > >> >spoke up on this point, and he stated this would make site-local
> > >> >addresses more attractive, which he didn't consider a feature. :-)
> > >> >
> > >> >Thomas
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> > >> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> > >> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> > >> Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >At 09.08.2002 16:24, Jim Fleming wrote:
> > >http://www.thepricedomain.com/index.php?domainlist=biz
> > >http://www.Powerpipe.com $7.99
> > >http://www.10-Domains.com $9.00
> > >http://www.WebHero.com $9.95
> > >http://www.RegisterFly.com $9.99
> > >http://www.iaregistry.com $11.95
> > >http://www.totalregistrations.com $12.00
> > >http://www.namesecure.com $12.00
> > >http://www.domaininvestigator.com $12.47
> > >
> > >Registra...Registry...Registrar...Reseller...Webmaster...Customer
> > >
> > >Jim Fleming
> > >2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB
> > >http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space
> > >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >--
> > >This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > >Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > >("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > >Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|